07. Lawyers DEBATE Divorce, S*X Work & Going VEGAN?! 

[00:00:00] Russell: 
This is America. People can do what they want with their bodies, whether you like it or not. 

[00:00:03] Rahul: 
Russell's dressed like a dork, so you can imagine I'm gonna win. There's 

[00:00:06] Russell: 
nothing more smug 

[00:00:07] Rahul: 
than a person eating an impossible burger. I would consider that to be almost identical to a meat. Unless you've eaten it, you don't know what I mean.

[00:00:13] Rahul: 
You, you don't know. You have no idea. Exactly. So I could be eating meat for all, you know. It's impossible 

[00:00:18] Russell: 
to tell. Yeah, because, yeah. 'cause you haven't eaten it before.

[00:00:24] Devil: 
Welcome to hell. Devil's advocate, Pitts lawyer against lawyer in a battle royale to answer the age old question. Who's better at arguing? The rules of the game are we spin the wheel of misfortune to decide on a topic. Once a topic has been selected, the advocates must answer a set of polarizing questions.

[00:00:43] Devil: 
When they disagree, the game begins. Each advocate must argue their side, but here's the devilish twist. They must argue for the side they did not select Let the depravity commence.

[00:01:04] Andrew: 
Welcome to Devil's Advocate. Today. We've got two divorce attorneys battling it out. We've got Russell and Raul, and they're both based outta Chicago. We're excited to have him. 

[00:01:15] Bobby: 
Yeah. Do you guys have any trash talk before we get started or is that, uh, 

[00:01:19] Russell: 
against each other? Yeah, I dunno. I guess you let your words.

[00:01:23] Russell: 
We talk a lot. We pick each other's brains every other day probably. Or every uhhuh You'll let your arguments 

[00:01:28] Bobby: 
do the talking. 

[00:01:29] Rahul: 
Ru Russell's dressed like a dork, so you can imagine. I'm gonna win. We need the shots fired sound. I'm sure I'm gonna spin the wheel.

[00:01:43] Bobby: 
Okay, and we're starting with divorce. That's their wheelhouse. Yep. This should be a good, nice softball way to start a conversation with divorce. Okay. Ready? First question. Custody laws should be updated to favor joint custody by default. Um, I'll take that. Um, I'm licensed in Florida where that is the facts.

[00:02:02] Bobby: 
It's gotta be, the default is 50 50, so yes. Or this is a yes no. If you guys disagree, then we're going to trigger the game. Okay. Well, I, I, I think so. I think they should be changed. 

[00:02:11] Rahul: 
If you want me to disagree, I'll disagree. Uh. Just so we can have some fun here. No. But realistically, I probably believe yes, it should be.

[00:02:20] Bobby: 
Okay. So just since it's the first one of the day, I'm gonna reiterate the directions here, Rahul, because you said no, you're now taking the position of Yes, which is what you wanted. So you've effectively played four d chess, good work, and uh, Russell. 'cause you took Yes. You're now taking 

[00:02:34] Rahul: 
No. Yeah, no problem.

[00:02:35] Rahul: 
I love it. I love it.

[00:02:42] Rahul: 
So, yes, uh, it has to be updated because the advent of work from home, the weight of each party carrying their respective loads for the children are now moving forward into the 21st century. Gone are the days where we're antiquated, where the mother is the breadwinner, staying at home, and the fathers are going to work and coming back.

[00:03:02] Rahul: 
The mother is rearing a child at home. It is. Much more important for both parties and the children. It's in their best interest to have both parents equally available to them in their respective way to care for them and take care of them. So we are. I am firmly in the position that the custody laws have to be updated to reflect a very equitable schedule between both parents.

[00:03:24] Russell: 
Well, that's a load of nonsense. There should be, you know what? There should be, there should be an individual court for each couple that goes through a divorce that bases their decisions based on the facts pertinent to that couple, instead of having some broad swath of rules that say, well, this is the default work from the default.

[00:03:40] Russell: 
In fact, you know where that happens. Swampy red states like Florida, like it doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is because one size fits all is a disaster. Due process is about each person being able to bring their own facts, their own case, their own laws in front of the judge and the judge making a decision based on their personal decision, not some broad default.

[00:04:01] Russell: 
Defaults are bad ideas 

[00:04:03] Rahul: 
that that sounds great, but I don't think the position was, should the law be 50 50? It said, do we start from a position of 50 50? I think practicing in a state where it does not have a 50 50. Sort of a default, I should say, sta starting point. It is often much harder, unfortunately, for men to get anywhere close to 50 50 than women, despite the fact that, you know, in the, in the best case scenario, you do want a court to determine what is.

[00:04:33] Rahul: 
In a child's best interest. However, it doesn't really work that way, and we're not saying that everybody should have 50 50. We're saying we should start with a presumption that both parents are equally good parents and it's up to one parent to decide and determine and convince a judge if the other parent is not as good, shouldn't have 50 50, or not starting from saying.

[00:04:50] Rahul: 
No, that parent should not have 50 50 gives you a higher burden and a higher mountain to climb than if you both started at an equal playing field. 

[00:04:57] Russell: 
See, the practical reason I'm licensed in, in Florida where this does happen, and then what ends up happening is dad moves out, he moves into a one bedroom apartment with his girlfriend and then says, alright, the kids are gonna be with me half the time.

[00:05:09] Russell: 
And that's the, that's the default. Then mom's gotta be like, no, no, wait. Like it's really, that's not good and it's clearly not good. If it's clearly not good, why do you do it instead? It just forces more litigation when instead, there should be a careful analysis by typically a court's expert, like a guardian ad litem or child representative, and surprise surprise, Florida really doesn't have either of those things, at least not in the same capacity.

[00:05:31] Russell: 
They just go by the default one. Again, one size fits all does not work. 

[00:05:35] Bobby: 
Okay, I think we're gonna cut it. Good. Good arguments on both sides. Good job guys. Made some great points. Okay, I'm going to spin the wheel if I know anything it's probably gonna land on divorce again 'cause this software is bad anyway.

[00:05:51] Bobby: 
Wow. What a surprise. At least this time it didn't say let's eat divorce. That is usually what it says. 

[00:05:58] Russell: 
I guess you have to maybe 

[00:05:58] Bobby: 
fix that for us. Um, okay, let's do another divorce one. I think this is a good. Good starting point. Uh, next one. History of domestic violence should automatically block a parent from seeking custody.

[00:06:11] Bobby: 
You guys should answer at the same time, by the way, because otherwise 

[00:06:13] Russell: 
Oh, oh, like would say agree? Yeah. No. 

[00:06:16] Bobby: 
The two, I mean, child support calculations should be based on the child's actual needs rather than a percentage of the paying parent's income. No. No. In cases involving a stay at home parent, it's fair to consider their contributions to the household as equal to financial earnings when dividing assets.

[00:06:33] Bobby: 
Yes.

[00:06:37] Bobby: 
Divorce proceedings should factor in a spouse's mental health when determining custody or financial arrangements. Not for financial arrangements, no. Yes. Okay. Can we call that a disagreement? Yes. Sure. Yes. Okay. We'll call it a disagreement. You guys are disagreeing. And, uh, just to be clear again, so Russell says, yes, it should be, it should be a factor or rule.

[00:06:56] Bobby: 
You're arguing on behalf of No, it should not be. And begin.

[00:07:04] Russell: 
Yeah. If someone's mental state is inherent in what they're able to do now and what they'll be able to do in the future, so their capacity to think clearly should obviously be a factor the court should consider when they're getting parenting time, making decisions for kids. And even like the income and division of assets, if someone is not able to work because they're mentally incapacitated one way or another.

[00:07:24] Russell: 
That has to get factored into for the purposes of support, uh, whether it's alimony, also known as maintenance or child support. Um, in addition, the distribution of assets should also, you know, accommodate that when someone is suffering legitimately from a mental illness and they can't be expected to work or achieve their true potential.

[00:07:41] Russell: 
I'm sorry, but they're gonna get a bigger share of the marital state because we gotta figure out a way to be, let's be frank, to keep them off the streets. Mental illness is real and mentally ill people get married and mentally ill people get divorced, but mentally ill people they really, really suffer in the divorce and there's gotta be some kind of safety net from their soon to be ex spouse.

[00:08:03] Rahul: 
No, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a factor in determining assets or uh, custody because there are a multitude of reasons why someone may or may not wanna get divorced. We can't go through every single one. You can't get. You can't spend years trying to determine what a mental illness may or may not be, then you're going to essentially get into a fight in court about whether someone has a mental illness or not.

[00:08:28] Rahul: 
Rather you say, okay, you were married for this amount of time. This is what it is. This is your default. This is how much money you get, and that's it. Who cares if they're, maybe that's why you're getting divorced, but that shouldn't be a factor, uh, in any sort of a, a determination. 

[00:08:43] Russell: 
Once again, your one size fits all mentality has put you in a straight jacket to your own.

[00:08:50] Russell: 
Egomaniacal manifestations through whole. Um, you gotta, you gotta take people as you as they come. If someone's out of their mind, what are you gonna do? Say, too bad. So sad. Like, and goes, they get 50 50 custody, 50 50 division of assets. Like, it doesn't work that way. Do we have a specific thing to address this?

[00:09:08] Russell: 
Because people. Go into court and a lot of times everyone in court's like, Hmm, this guy's got a problem. And we give them what's called a two 15 examination so that a doctor can take a look at him and then come back and say, yeah, this person does have a problem. And believe it or not, 'cause the person won't advocate for themselves.

[00:09:23] Russell: 
'cause the person invariably, and you know this Rahul will come back from the two 15 examination and be like, oh, this is all wrong. I'm not crazy at all. When like, everyone's like, yeah, this sort of confirmed what we thought the whole time. 

[00:09:35] Rahul: 
Well, so why does someone's craziness affect how much 

[00:09:37] Russell: 
money they get?

[00:09:39] Russell: 
Because they can't support themselves. They're gonna be on the street. I've represented people. The worst is the moms. If a mom is mentally ill and she disappears, they really do go out on the street. There's not a, uh, it's, it's, it is really sad situation. And they, yeah, they need to have more and frankly, like they need to have, so society's just supposed to take care of them.

[00:09:58] Russell: 
Their husband or their hu or their wife, they married them. I don't know. They, I think they need to be, make a contribution 

[00:10:05] Bobby: 
period. All right, we're gonna cut it. Um, the, by the way, your point about, uh, the woman, like not having anywhere to go after, you know, being deemed mentally unstable and so on and so forth.

[00:10:16] Bobby: 
My wife is a therapist. Yeah. In New York, very different here because you never get put out on the street. Like there's always a safety net. They go to Micah shelters if they're like unable to be in the normal shelter system. But, uh, yeah, I think that might be a Florida thing. That's good. Yeah. 

[00:10:32] Russell: 
Mine ended up, sounds like Florida.

[00:10:34] Russell: 
Florida. Wander the beaches Crazy. Crazy is a relative word down there. 

[00:10:40] Bobby: 
Yeah, that is correct. Okay. Let's get out, let, uh, spinner here. Okay. Hopefully we don't get divorced again. Nice. We're doing marketing. Firms should understand how the sausage is made when it comes to their marketing. Um, not written. No.

[00:10:56] Russell: 
No, 

[00:10:56] Bobby: 
not really. Yes, they should love it. I'm happy you guys disagree here. Okay, well begin.

[00:11:06] Russell: 
Um, firms do not need to know how the sausage is made. We're all born. Well, hold on. Hold on. Yeah, I think you should argue the opposite. Oh, it's supposed to. Oh, rats. Okay. Yeah, sure. Firm. Of course, firms should know how the sausage is made when they're marketing, they're paying good money for it. They have every right to know how, what SEO practices their, uh, vendors are really providing, what ads they're really providing.

[00:11:28] Russell: 
Otherwise, they're just giving a certain amount of dollars and then guessing if it works or not. I mean. This isn't a madman episode where you know Don Draper goes in the back room and spins up a yarn. This is real life. I make a certain amount of money. I put a certain amount of money aside to try to get future business.

[00:11:44] Russell: 
I deserve to know what I'm putting in is having a return on that investment, and I deserve to know how. 

[00:11:51] Rahul: 
There is a concept of having too many cooks in the kitchen. The whole firm does not need to know how the marketing is done. One or two decision makers, the CMO, the marketing officer, the owner of the law firm, or anyone else they've designated two control marketing should know how it's working.

[00:12:06] Rahul: 
I feel like you have too many people all trying to chime in with their opinion. There won't be any cohesiveness or there's going to be internal turmoil about what the right strategy is. So one person or. Couple of people, that division has to determine what the marketing is and everyone's gotta align.

[00:12:21] Rahul: 
So the firm puts out a cohesive brand that is, uh, appealing to the public versus having everybody in the firm from the. The CEO or the founding partner to the law clerk who's in law school, knowing how this marketing stuff is working. 

[00:12:36] Russell: 
I don't know, like the marketing is. So without the marketing, everything else falls apart, and I think it becomes a problem if the entire firm doesn't have a stake in it.

[00:12:45] Russell: 
One, because they are stakeholders already, and then two, it's easy for the CMO or the law or firm owner. To get to, to get blindsided because they have their own preferences. You know, like there's some people out there that only use, like Instagram, some people that only use, uh, TikTok, some people that only use Facebook.

[00:13:02] Russell: 
If you, you're stuck on that, you've only gonna get that kind of market and you're gonna be completely blinded to what other possibilities there are. Um, you've got your best focus group in the world is your own, is everyone on your team. So I don't know why you wouldn't wanna use all of 'em. 

[00:13:16] Bobby: 
Okay, got it.

[00:13:17] Bobby: 
Well, we'll, we'll keep it moving next. Topic. Okay. Controversial. Controversial topics. What could we have possibly put a number one? Sex work should be legal. I don't believe it. Shoulds legal? No. Oh, this was like an act. Actual natural disagreement. Okay, so Russell, you believe it should be, and uh, Rahul, you don't.

[00:13:42] Bobby: 
It's bother your opposite. Yeah. That's what we're doing the whole time. Yeah. Correct. Dance. I don't wanna talk about that. Okay. And, uh, begin.

[00:13:55] Rahul: 
Go ahead. Start. Oh, it should not be legal because it is. A, uh, an industry that is very predatory for people, uh, to be taken advantage of. You have everything from human trafficking. You have children being exploited. You have people who promise the world to, uh, to, to certain people, including, you know, what do you hear about, right?

[00:14:19] Rahul: 
You hear about all these. Stories you hear about people in Romania without naming any names, you hear about all kinds of people who are in the news, and that's kind of a world where there's a lot of exploitation, there is a lot of pain, there's a lot of mental health issues, and you're really taking advantage of these people.

[00:14:38] Rahul: 
So generally speaking, I would argue that sex work should not be, is it legal? Should not be profitable, should not be something, whatever it is. I think there should be a bar on it. At very minimum there should be a high regulation on it. This is America. People 

[00:14:55] Russell: 
can do what they want with their bodies, whether you like it or not.

[00:14:58] Russell: 
That's just a fact. And the fact of the matter is it's already legal. It's legal in Las Vegas, it's legal in these other places. These decision areas you're describing aren't rampant or some national crisis there. In fact, I'm no expert on this and haven't done any research, but I'm willing to bet that because it's legal, they actually have social workers who are reaching out to remedy these issues that you addressed.

[00:15:19] Russell: 
Um, are these Is sex work sad? Yeah. Is sex work problematic? Yeah. None of that means it needs to be illegal. So those can eating too many candy bars, at some point the nanny state has to draw a line and say, I'm not getting into that. I doubt it ever will, thanks to people like you, Rahul. 

[00:15:37] Bobby: 
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.

[00:15:38] Bobby: 
Sorry. We always have to sprint for the mute. That 

[00:15:40] Andrew: 
one liner at the beginning. So strong. Yeah. 

[00:15:42] Bobby: 
This is America. It's just hard to argue with. I think that one over the jury. Throw in another spin here. Okay, we're gonna do food. Keep it light. Let's do food. 

[00:15:54] Russell: 
Raul's never eaten meat, so it better not be a meat based question.

[00:15:57] Bobby: 
Oh, you know, this is actually gonna work then. I, I, I love it. Let, I didn't know that. Let's go. But our, yeah, our questions could be good. Although our first question has nothing to do with food, so throwing in a devil's advocate twist. First question is, you can still listen to Kanye's music despite him as a person.

[00:16:12] Bobby: 
Can you separate the artist from the art? No, we can't. All right. Okay. Nothing to do with food. Uh, okay. Next one. Society should shift towards plant-based diets to combat climate change and promote health. Oh, yes, man. You guys are disagreeing a lot. I guess it's good. So just to be like, same page here.

[00:16:34] Bobby: 
Russell, you said yes, right? Yes or no? Russell, you said no. 

[00:16:38] Russell: 
I said yes. So that means no, right? Oh, you said yes. So you're arguing? No, 

[00:16:40] Bobby: 
you're arguing. No. Yeah. Rahul, you said no. So you're arguing? Yes. Can you restate the 

[00:16:45] Rahul: 
question just so I know I'm arguing? Yes. For what exactly. 

[00:16:48] Bobby: 
Okay. The question was, society should shift towards plant-based diets to combat climate change and promote health.

[00:16:54] Bobby: 
And you're saying yes, it should shift in that direction. That is what you are, that is how you were arguing, not what you said. I love that we have to explain the game every time. Complicated. Our game is so stupid. Okay. Uh, and begin.

[00:17:09] Rahul: 
Yes. Society should consider switching to a plant-based diet to, uh, promote whatever it is. Uh, you know, that needs to be done because the, the statistics show switching to a plant-based diet can reduce an individual's carbon footprint. By several tons, uh, with, with a vegan or vegetarian diet. And not only is it helping the environment, it might not help you necessarily, but it's going to certainly help, uh, future generations and help the planet because we are certainly not doing anything else trying to promote any sort of healthy lifestyle here.

[00:17:48] Rahul: 
It also is going to help not only the planet, but your internal planet that's within you. It's going to be. Creating a lot more healthy individuals who can in turn help the planet. 

[00:17:58] Russell: 
I'm gonna tell you why. I know from personal experience that a plant-based diet is annoying. I've known Rahul for years, and he's a plant eater exclusively.

[00:18:06] Russell: 
So whenever we have to find a place to eat, there has to be some plant-based option. And if it's not a plant-based option, you had a steakhouse or something. He eats like a head of cauliflower or something ridiculous and you all look for stupid. So for that reason alone, I'm adamantly opposed to any sort of encouragement of this freakish and deviant lifestyle that Rahul has chose to embrace wholeheartedly.

[00:18:29] Rahul: 
So, so this exactly explains that there's no actual good reason why you can't go to, it's more of a selfish reason as to why you shouldn't be, uh, on a plant-based diet as much as why it doesn't help you, but it. Nevertheless helps the planet. And that's what the studies, scientific studies show, uh, to be true.

[00:18:49] Russell: 
There's nothing more smug than a person eating an impossible burger. 

[00:18:53] Rahul: 
That is, uh, I would consider that to be almost identical to a meat. Unless you've eaten it. You don't know what I eat. You don't, you don't know. You have no idea. Exactly. So I could be eating meat for all, you know. It's impossible 

[00:19:04] Russell: 
to tell.

[00:19:06] Russell: 
Yeah, because yeah, because you haven't eaten it before. 

[00:19:08] Bobby: 
Yeah. This, this is like conversations that we have in the office with some of our vegan employees and they're trying to debate that A BLT, uh, vegan BLT is as good as a regular one, and it's just like. You don't even know. You've forgotten what bacon tastes like 

[00:19:23] Rahul: 
for the record.

[00:19:23] Rahul: 
Yeah. I hate Impossible Burgers. Just for the record. It tastes terrible and it's really bad for you. Very oily, very oily, ton of sodium, very oily. It's just not good for you. Just, I like 

[00:19:35] Bobby: 
the, um, uh, what's the other one? Not impossible. Beyond. I like the beyond. One more though. 

[00:19:39] Andrew: 
Uh, I don't like either. 

[00:19:41] Bobby: 
Yeah, I can try.

[00:19:42] Bobby: 
I don't dunno. You think it's like, um, you know, calamity that there's almond milk, you don't believe in non animal based milks. So yeah, I think, 

[00:19:50] Andrew: 
yeah, I, I do think they taste disgusting. It's, it's weird. 

[00:19:54] Bobby: 
Yeah, it's 

[00:19:54] Andrew: 
weird. 

[00:19:55] Bobby: 
I agree America. But let's, uh, let's round out here with our made up word section,

[00:20:06] Bobby: 
just two. Reiterate how this works. There's no debate. You guys don't have to take the opposite side of anything. What you do have to do is define a completely made up word that doesn't exist. Okay? So we'll give you the word. Each of you can give your own definition. If one of you feels like the other person's definition is correct and they've nailed it, and uh, that is what the word means, you could say so, but.

[00:20:33] Bobby: 
To be warned, that is considered, uh, abandoning, like, uh, you, you have effectively lost the round. Okay. Okay. And the, hmm, there's two good ones here. Do you have a preference on, uh, five verse 10? I preferred five. Kind of p prefer 10 all. Maybe we'll do, do either. Maybe we'll do both, either. We'll see. Let's start with it.

[00:20:52] Bobby: 
We'll, we'll do five. Okay. The word is,

[00:20:58] Bobby: 
the word is flippery. 

[00:21:01] Rahul: 
Can, can you, can you say that again?

[00:21:06] Bobby: 
Floy? 

[00:21:09] Rahul: 
I would define Floy as a clumsy, unintentional action or actions that creates c chaos, confusion in like in sort of a podcasting or an office environment. Sort of like kind of a syn, a synonym for like. Flury or he's being whimsical, he's being floy. Uh uh, something like that, 

[00:21:35] Bobby: 
like devil's advocate is Flury 

[00:21:37] Rahul: 
Devil's advocate.

[00:21:38] Rahul: 
His podcast is 

[00:21:39] Bobby: 
Floy. 

[00:21:40] Rahul: 
Yeah, there is a touch of sounds flu would adaptation Uhhuh. There's a, this is a total flury this 

[00:21:46] Bobby: 
game That makes sense to me. Okay. I could see 

[00:21:50] Russell: 
that. Russell, you're up a flury is to describe something that's overly soft. Um, so something's flury, just like something would be slippery.

[00:21:59] Russell: 
It has a floy quality to it. So therefore, the floppiness is, means it's overly soft. It's not, it doesn't have a strong, uh, form or strong, uh, internal structure. So maybe like a bunch of, uh, soap bubbles from the, the, uh, from your dishes. It could be 

[00:22:16] Bobby: 
flury, that effect. Yeah, I think that's also correct. I think, uh, it can be used interchangeably 

[00:22:22] Andrew: 
and those were both really strong, either 

[00:22:24] Bobby: 
whimsical and clumsy or slippery and, uh.

[00:22:28] Bobby: 
Has no, no shape. Lacking of shape. Lacking of shape. Yes. The two definitions of flury. Okay. And that rounds out. This, this day is today's, this day is today's devil's advocate. Thanks for hopping on with us. Russell and Rahul, you guys played an excellent game. We'll probably like have a debate around two, one later.

[00:22:48] Russell: 
Okay. 

[00:22:48] Bobby: 
Maybe, but amazing. I think it was overall my takeaways, Russell with America, I think Rahul with Flury. Everybody's a winner. We'll see you on the next Devil's Advocate. Thank you very much. Bye. Thanks guys. Bye. 

[00:23:01] Producer: 
Thanks for tuning into this episode, episode of Devil's Advocate. Who do you think the winner was?

[00:23:05] Producer: 
Make sure to leave a comment to let us know. DM us for any ghoulish topics you think we should dare to debate. We'll catch you in the next one.